How is this MS63???

[BillJones]

Who you gonna believe PCGS/CAC or someone that's seen a picture of the coin. Look at whole picture, not just the strike. I never understood the PCGS only collector. I would of lost my NGC coins.

 

I'm going to be believe my observations based on 55+ years of experience as a collector and a dealer. I've looked at enough of the PCGS - CAC combination graded coins IN HAND to know that you can't take their word on it at face value.

[mommam17]

55 years as a collector and dealer does not matter, you can't grade from a picture of a coin.

[brg5658]

55 years as a collector and dealer does not matter, you can't grade from a picture of a coin.

 

Maybe you missed it (as it was hidden in ALL CAPS), but BillJones' last comment was with regard to coins he has seen in hand. I have helped you out below.

 

I'm going to believe my observations based on 55+ years of experience as a collector and a dealer. I've looked at enough of the PCGS - CAC combination graded coins IN HAND to know that you can't take their word on it at face value.

[MJ]

Who you gonna believe PCGS/CAC or someone that's seen a picture of the coin. Look at whole picture, not just the strike. I never understood the PCGS only collector. I would of lost my NGC coins.

 

I'm going to be believe my observations based on 55+ years of experience as a collector and a dealer. I've looked at enough of the PCGS - CAC combination graded coins IN HAND to know that you can't take their word on it at face value.

 

Nor should you. We are all wired differently and have developed our sence of what works for us.

 

mark

[MJ]

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

 

Actually your post implied that it did.

 

I will pay more attention to the posts that state the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it. I've never seen anyone post anything remotely close to that. Could you point me to a thread?

 

mark

[mommam17]

We have been talking about the coin that he has tried to grade by looking at a picture.....

 

[EleMint Man]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

As it should be! Who wants an unattractive coin unless it's the only one known of it's type when there are plenty of nice ones in the same grade

at the same price or lower.

[MarkFeld]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

As it should be! Who wants an unattractive coin unless it's the only one known of it's type when there are plenty of nice ones in the same grade

at the same price or lower.

 

What does what you wrote above have to do with grading, based on eye appeal?

[BillJones]

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

 

Actually your post implied that it did.

 

I will pay more attention to the posts that state the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it. I've never seen anyone post anything remotely close to that. Could you point me to a thread?

 

mark

 

I've read the comments over there about their lack of respect NGC-CAC combination. Those comments have not been extensive and have sometimes been subtle, but they have been expressed.

 

I'm sure that I started a thread to elicit those opinions I would get some negative comments about the NGC-CAC combination, but I might also end up getting boot from PCGS too. So far I've only approached "super secret probation" over there once.

 

You know as well as I do that there are fair number of people on that board who are totally loyal to the PCGS product. Some of them won't buy an NGC graded coin, and many of them are itching to cross their coins to PCGS after they do, even if they lose a grading point or two.

 

[EleMint Man]

55 years as a collector and dealer does not matter, you can't grade from a picture of a coin.

 

 

 

Most of the time you can't though I've seen some that I'm confident of the grade

and eye appeal of the coin.

 

This is an example: http://www.ebay.com/itm/182106815066?_trksid=p2060353.m2749.l2649&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT

 

The coin looks great in hand!

[numisport]

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

 

Actually your post implied that it did.

 

I will pay more attention to the posts that state the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it. I've never seen anyone post anything remotely close to that. Could you point me to a thread?

 

mark

 

I've read the comments over there about their lack of respect NGC-CAC combination. Those comments have not been extensive and have sometimes been subtle, but they have been expressed.

 

I'm sure that I started a thread to elicit those opinions I would get some negative comments about the NGC-CAC combination, but I might also end up getting boot from PCGS too. So far I've only approached "super secret probation" over there once.

 

You know as well as I do that there are fair number of people on that board who are totally loyal to the PCGS product. Some of them won't buy an NGC graded coin, and many of them are itching to cross their coins to PCGS after they do, even if they lose a grading point or two.

I happen to own NGC-CAC coins and have assumed that NGC and PCGS coin grades are considered equal to CAC. In other words although their value may be different in the eyes of PCGS' cult following an MS63 that is A or B quality would be CAC regardless of which grading service holder it was in.

Or is there different criteria for an NGC MS 63 to be A or B quality than a PCGS MS 63 to be A or B quality ? Do you follow what I am saying ? Sure would be interesting to hear from Albanese folks on this.

[MJ]

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

 

Actually your post implied that it did.

 

I will pay more attention to the posts that state the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it. I've never seen anyone post anything remotely close to that. Could you point me to a thread?

 

mark

 

You know as well as I do that there are fair number of people on that board who are totally loyal to the PCGS product. Some of them won't buy an NGC graded coin, and many of them are itching to cross their coins to PCGS after they do, even if they lose a grading point or two.

 

This I've seen.

 

mark

[Walkerfan]

 

Sorry Mark, but you need to look at the reactions ATS whenever someone says anything negative about CAC and most especially the PCGS- CAC combination. So far as they are concerned coins graded by PCGS with the CAC endorsement are ALWAYS graded correctly.

 

This is simply not true. You are projecting your narrative. You need to read all the posts. There are several non CAC advocates ATS. They rally on any CAC tread started.

 

mark

 

I never said that ALL of the posters ATS are PCGS - CAC advocates. There are people over there who dispute the contention that those coins are always properly graded, but you known darn well that there are lots of CAC-A-FILES over there who push that position. And to them the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it.

 

Actually your post implied that it did.

 

I will pay more attention to the posts that state the NGC-CAC combination doesn't cut it. I've never seen anyone post anything remotely close to that. Could you point me to a thread?

 

mark

 

I've read the comments over there about their lack of respect NGC-CAC combination. Those comments have not been extensive and have sometimes been subtle, but they have been expressed.

 

I'm sure that I started a thread to elicit those opinions I would get some negative comments about the NGC-CAC combination, but I might also end up getting boot from PCGS too. So far I've only approached "super secret probation" over there once.

 

You know as well as I do that there are fair number of people on that board who are totally loyal to the PCGS product. Some of them won't buy an NGC graded coin, and many of them are itching to cross their coins to PCGS after they do, even if they lose a grading point or two.

I happen to own NGC-CAC coins and have assumed that NGC and PCGS coin grades are considered equal to CAC. In other words although their value may be different in the eyes of PCGS' cult following an MS63 that is A or B quality would be CAC regardless of which grading service holder it was in.

Or is there different criteria for an NGC MS 63 to be A or B quality than a PCGS MS 63 to be A or B quality ? Do you follow what I am saying ? Sure would be interesting to hear from Albanese folks on this.

 

No, I'm sure there is no difference in the eyes of CAC.

 

Only Kool-Aid drinkers would dispute it.

[EleMint Man]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

As it should be! Who wants an unattractive coin unless it's the only one known of it's type when there are plenty of nice ones in the same grade

at the same price or lower.

 

What does what you wrote above have to do with grading, based on eye appeal?

 

I noticed your question now, a few days late! I assumed from your statement that graders are trained to factor in eye appeal when they grade a coin.

The point I was making is when browsing through coins for sale on eBay, I often see lots of discrepancies between coins of the same year, mint and

grade, especially in common dates under MS66. The discrepancies run the gamut from brilliantly toned coins to the dark, dingy and macabre. Morgans on eBay and Heritage are a seemingly endless supply of the variations which I just mentioned.

If eye appeal is a factor in grading, what percentage of the equation does it have?

Seems to me some "Ugly" coins get high grades simply because of strike.

[Mr.Mcknowitall]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

As it should be! Who wants an unattractive coin unless it's the only one known of it's type when there are plenty of nice ones in the same grade

at the same price or lower.

 

What does what you wrote above have to do with grading, based on eye appeal?

 

I noticed your question now, a few days late! I assumed from your statement that graders are trained to factor in eye appeal when they grade a coin.

The point I was making is when browsing through coins for sale on eBay, I often see lots of discrepancies between coins of the same year, mint and

grade, especially in common dates under MS66. The discrepancies run the gamut from brilliantly toned coins to the dark, dingy and macabre. Morgans on eBay and Heritage are a seemingly endless supply of the variations which I just mentioned.

If eye appeal is a factor in grading, what percentage of the equation does it have?

Seems to me some "Ugly" coins get high grades simply because of strike.

 

Would you concur that eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder? Would you concur that people have different abilities of depth perception, color awareness, vision strength, lens curvature, etc.? Would you concur that a shiny bauble might not appeal to a person that finds toning pleasing? What you describe as discrepancies are not necessarily so. It is very possible personal opinion, nothing more.Eye appeal is not limited to a single description. That is, to me, the beauty of eye appeal.

[MarkFeld]

"Absolutely and sometimes more than I think it should."

 

 

 

 

Thanks Mark.

 

So unlike bag marks and wear that are not original features of coins produced by the mint, attractiveness is used in the grading process because…? When you were being trained to grade coins, did anyone explain the reason it is used in the grading process?

 

Because, like it or not, eye-appeal is part of the grading equation.

 

 

As it should be! Who wants an unattractive coin unless it's the only one known of it's type when there are plenty of nice ones in the same grade

at the same price or lower.

 

What does what you wrote above have to do with grading, based on eye appeal?

 

I noticed your question now, a few days late! I assumed from your statement that graders are trained to factor in eye appeal when they grade a coin.

The point I was making is when browsing through coins for sale on eBay, I often see lots of discrepancies between coins of the same year, mint and

grade, especially in common dates under MS66. The discrepancies run the gamut from brilliantly toned coins to the dark, dingy and macabre. Morgans on eBay and Heritage are a seemingly endless supply of the variations which I just mentioned.

If eye appeal is a factor in grading, what percentage of the equation does it have?

Seems to me some "Ugly" coins get high grades simply because of strike.

 

In the case of mint state and Proof coins, in particular, eye appeal is a major component of grading. I have seen countless coins which appeared to have been graded 1 or 2 points higher (than they otherwise would have been) due to eye-appeal.

 

I don't think "ugly" coins "get high grades simply because of strike." I believe other factors, such as clean surfaces and/or luster, must be at play.

[Afterword]

"Would you concur that eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder? Would you concur that people have different abilities of depth perception, color awareness, vision strength, lens curvature, etc.? Would you concur that a shiny bauble might not appeal to a person that finds toning pleasing? What you describe as discrepancies are not necessarily so. It is very possible personal opinion, nothing more.Eye appeal is not limited to a single description."

 

 

 

Right.

 

Marks, damage, strike and wear are not nearly as subjective as eye appeal. Anyone can easily and legitimately argue that a coin is or is not attractive, but doing the same with marks, etc. is another matter altogether, because these things can be examined closely and have defined properties that can be identified and verified, were eye appeal does not (unless you allow others to determine and define what is or is not attractive for you).

 

People decide for themselves what is or is not attractive, but that is not to say that they cannot be influenced by other opinions, because they can. Our idea of what is or is not attractive is developed over time and influenced by others.

 

In regards to coins, one such influence is the TPGs. A high price tag on coins with a particular look is another.

 

Nothing is really attractive or unattractive. Beauty is something conceived by the mind, and that is the only place it exists.

 

 

[Nutmeg Coin]

This is how PCGS defines the grades as well as higher ones:

 

MS/PR-63 Moderate number/size marks/hairlines, strike may not be full

MS/PR-63+ Average number of marks/hairlines, strike will be close to average. Good eye appeal for grade.

MS/PR-64 Few marks/hairlines or a couple of severe ones, strike should be average or above

MS/PR-64+ Very few marks/hairlines or a couple of heavier ones, strike should be average or above. Superior eye appeal.

MS/PR-65 Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

 

[Afterword]

This is how PCGS defines the grades as well as higher ones:

 

MS/PR-63 Moderate number/size marks/hairlines, strike may not be full

MS/PR-63+ Average number of marks/hairlines, strike will be close to average. Good eye appeal for grade.

MS/PR-64 Few marks/hairlines or a couple of severe ones, strike should be average or above

MS/PR-64+ Very few marks/hairlines or a couple of heavier ones, strike should be average or above. Superior eye appeal.

MS/PR-65 Minor marks/hairlines though none in focal areas, above average strike

http://www.pcgs.com/grades/

 

 

 

 

Yes, I am aware of this.

[Nutmeg Coin]

Coin sold for: $976.80 with auction fee. GS is $975. Seller may have had a better net selling to CAC directly.

[EleMint Man]

"Would you concur that eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder? Would you concur that people have different abilities of depth perception, color awareness, vision strength, lens curvature, etc.? Would you concur that a shiny bauble might not appeal to a person that finds toning pleasing? What you describe as discrepancies are not necessarily so. It is very possible personal opinion, nothing more.Eye appeal is not limited to a single description."

 

 

 

Right.

 

Marks, damage, strike and wear are not nearly as subjective as eye appeal. Anyone can easily and legitimately argue that a coin is or is not attractive, but doing the same with marks, etc. is another matter altogether, because these things can be examined closely and have defined properties that can be identified and verified, were eye appeal does not (unless you allow others to determine and define what is or is not attractive for you).

 

People decide for themselves what is or is not attractive, but that is not to say that they cannot be influenced by other opinions, because they can. Our idea of what is or is not attractive is developed over time and influenced by others.

 

In regards to coins, one such influence is the TPGs. A high price tag on coins with a particular look is another.

 

Nothing is really attractive or unattractive. Beauty is something conceived by the mind, and that is the only place it exists.

 

 

Philosophy 101 and ophthalmology 2020 along with coin evaluations PR70 has made this thread most interesting! To answer the question, I concur that eye appeal is in the eye of the beholder. What else could it be......that is the question.

From my experience, some coins I've shown appeal to everyone that's' viewed

them. For example, I've shown a 1880 S MS65 semi PL Morgan in a OGH that has extraordinary almost surreal "Ghostly" like luster to many people..

Everyone has said "It's a Beautiful Coin" or things like "Really Nice" and so on.

Dealers think it could upgrade to MS66 but I like it the way it is! With all this talk

on a really not so bad Walker, I've developed double vision from reading all the

comments several times. I am now seeing things like....

 

 

[coinman_23885]

Coin sold for: $976.80 with auction fee. GS is $975. Seller may have had a better net selling to CAC directly.

 

That's usually the way auction houses work for coins that are common or at least not difficult to find on the bourse. It often nets more money to sell the coin at wholesale or slightly above to a collector or sell to CAC. Auctions should be reserved for rare, esoteric, or coins with unusual characteristics (such as eye appealing toning, far better than average strike on a mushy strike series, etc.) - coins that could benefit from competitive bidding (and not a coin you can find on Collectors' Corner in 5 minutes).

[EleMint Man]

Sometimes it's just the opposite. This auction just ended 2:28 hours ago. All told, the buyer will pay $210 for this Walker. At this moment, one can find the

same on eBay with as good eye appeal for $130 or less...$110 is the cheapest. I've seen people

pay 50%--200% more then low retail prices time and time again

from this auction house. Good for them (Auction House)...and the seller!

 

 

Superb Gem BU 1940 Walking Liberty Half. PCGS MS65 CAC Superb Gem BU 1940 Walking Liberty Half. PCGS MS65 CAC

 

ITEM NUMBER: 200711194

Starting Bid: $1.00

Current Bid: $161.00

High Bidder: emiddle

# of Bids: 8

 

Buyer's Premium: 19% ?

Shipping fee: $18.00

Bid Increment: $20.00

 

Time Left: COMPLETED

Start Time: 06/13/2016 03:00 PM

End Time: 06/16/2016 12:00 AM

 

This to emphasize the point:

 

 

2 Flawless BU 2016 First Strike $1 Eagles. PCGS MS70

 

ITEM NUMBER: 200711040

Starting Bid: $1.00

Current Bid: $121.00

High Bidder: marianneh

# of Bids: 6

 

Buyer's Premium: 19% ?

Shipping fee: $18.00

Bid Increment: $20.00

 

Time Left: COMPLETED

Start Time: 06/13/2016 03:00 PM

End Time: 06/16/2016 12:00 AM

 

 

Available right now for $40.98 or best offer AND free shipping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[bourse28]

Poor Strike - average quality or lower.

 

I thought coins had to be A or B to sticker, this one is definitely a C coin in my view.